Wednesday, August 29, 2007

BlogFreeDecision2008

It’s early in the election cycle, but here are my opinions of the presidential candidates of whom I have formed an opinion. I scratched this out rather quickly so don’t be surprised if, in my haste, I did something crazy like predict Hillary Clinton to be the next president of these United States. It could have been worse; I might have picked Ron Paul, although such a wild prediction would have required not only haste, but also a good deal of alcohol and other forms of undue influence.

Anyway, here goes. I expect some feedback on this. My only compensation for running this blog are your thoughtful comments and hateful insults, and I value them all so dearly.

Mitt Romney was a much more attractive candidate when he won the governorship of deep-blue Massachusetts as a Republican, than he is today after repositioning himself for a national run. The Mormon thing doesn’t bother me, the flip-flopping thing does.

Barack Obama cuts an impressive figure, but I’m coming to the opinion that there isn’t enough there, at least not right now. And as someone who is fairly conservative when it comes to matters financial, his talk about redistribution of wealth leaves me wary, John Edwards even more so. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system currently on the market and when government starts monkeying around with who can earn how much and who should get a free ride, then the system is bound to sputter.

I want to like Rudy Giuliani. He reminds me of one of my friend’s dad. I just don’t think he’s up to the challenge of leading the most powerful country in the world. It will be interesting if he gets the Republican nomination, given his stance on social issues. It’s to his credit that he is holding firm on his positions.

I don’t know much about Fred Thompson, except that I confuse him with another actor turned pol, Fred Grandy of Gopher fame. I’ve never seen Law and Order, so I don’t know if he could play a good president. I did read a long piece on Thompson in New York magazine, but it was obvious the author thought little of him so I’m not sure that I received an unbiased perspective. He is a southern conservative and seems to know how to work a room so I think he’s got a shot at the nomination. But he’ll never beat . . .

Hillary Clinton will probably be our first woman president. This doesn’t scare me as much as it probably does some of you. She’s proven herself to be fairly moderate and I don’t fear an impending socialist state under her leadership. If she’s anything like her husband, she’ll be mindful to keep her polling numbers favorable, which means she won’t do anything revolutionary such as fix healthcare, but she also won’t do anything monumentally stupid. She wouldn’t be my first choice to run the country, but she’s not the worst.

The candidate that intrigues me most isn’t even in the race at this time, Michael Bloomberg. He’s no longer a Republican, he never really was, but the fact that he could get elected in NYC under the GOP banner says something for the man. The fact that he has turned out to be a pretty popular and effective mayor says even more. But the reason I might feel comfortable in handing him the reins to the country is because he’s earned billions of dollars. Now lest you think me a money grubbing pig, or at least a deep admirer of money grubbing pigs, allow me to explain how massive wealth accumulation is an indicator of effective leadership skills.

One of the main problems with our political system is that the people in charge are too often afraid to do what they know to be right because they’re afraid it will anger the voters or betray their campaign contributors. As for Bloomberg, a person cannot earn that kind of scratch by kowtowing to public opinion or any other interest that conflicts with making the decisions that provide the most benefit to the organization. So Bloomberg, as president, I’m presuming, wouldn’t be afraid to make unpopular decisions provided that those decisions are the most profitable.

When I speak of profitability, I’m not referring only to economic matters. No matter what the issue, you want to make decisions that will provide the most return on your investment. Obviously, you want to educate the most children, feed the most hungry, and treat the most sick without spending more than you have to.

Plus, Bloomberg would run as an independent and thus loosen the stranglehold that the two major parties have over government.

So in summation: Bloomberg in ’08, but more than likely, Hail to Hillary.

45 comments:

Tito Jackson
said...

Reminds me of the last race for Governor. One candidate that you know is horrible (Hillary/Blago) or someone you know little about who may or may not be horrible.

The thought of Hillary as President sickens me but I agree that she will not take us too far to the left. Not because she doesn't want to but because big business won't allow it. I hate that I have turned into such a conspiracy theorist but I firmly believe that big business and special interest groups have a headlock on our economy and political system.

I've got to agree with Anon Comm on Obama (he had me at Hello, lost me with his eagerness for the job of President of the US for which more recently he doesn't REALLY seem prepared), and Edwards (seems likable, but not President-worthy). Hillary is a safe bet-not too hot not too cold and seemingly smart enough to surround herself with wise advisors.BLT

I’m confused over your swipe at Obama and Edwards. Since when did they say anything against capitalism? Though it's a popular and common argument, it is a misinformed one. There seems to be a lack of understanding of basic public policy when proactive government action is equated to the “sputtering” of capitalism. Which president in the modern era hasn’t advocated some sort of redistribution of wealth to address the economic and social needs of the country?

As for John Edwards, he has a well articulated plan with the goal to end poverty in America. He is not advocating a system that limits what you can earn. Are those who are against Edwards' goals opposed to rewarding work, revitalizing devastated neighborhoods, and expanding college opportunities? Those are the fundamental tenets of his policy. My guess is that a good deal of your readers (and perhaps even you) relied on some federal and state support to attend college. Everyone who utilized a federal Pell Grant, a state MAP grant or a guaranteed student loan is "guilty" of benefiting from a system that redistributes wealth. There is nothing inherently wrong – or anti-capitalistic – about that.

Saying that there isn’t enough “there” in regards to Barack Obama? Exactly where is your “there?” His stance on all the issues has been clearly noted in the press – and a cursory review of his website gives you more than enough to adequately judge his positions. You can reasonably disagree with him, but saying there isn’t anything there is untrue. Yes, he is a first term US Senator – but he spent two decades before that actively engaged in social causes, and has dedicated his career to addressing the needs of the poor in America. I question why Hillary Clinton is given such an easy pass on the “experience” metric, even though her primary claim to fame was being married to a popular president. She has spent a minuscule amount of her professional career in leadership roles compared to Obama or Edwards.

I'm going to have to go with my man here (suprise!). I WANT to be for Hillary really, really bad for many reasons. Not the least of which AnonCom commented about: getting Bill back anywhere near the White House. I just don't like her. I wish I did.

To Anonymous 1:31 Obama was too eager? Is that a criticism? Also, all candidates for the 2008 election should be considered ill-prepared having never been president before.

Right now, my big issue is diplomacy and restoring some integrity back to the United States in the world's eyes. Obama's the man for that. What better way to send a message to the rest of the world that we want someone entirely different from GWB?

A very close second on my presidential wish list would be attention to social issues. Edwards is my choice on that front. His being a millionaire doesn't exclude him from being sincere. I'd rather a millionaire who lobbies for a fairer distribution of wealth, than a millionaire who's only interested in massive upper-echelon tax breaks and government contracts for his evil friends.

The problem is the over-saturation of candidates in the media (Tito, can I get a "whoop whoop" for criticizing the media?) The fact that Obama is viewed as yesterday's darling, which I believe is happening, is disappointing. On one front he is considered too inexperienced, but because we have seen SO MUCH of him, people are already tired of him. How can it be both ways? But it is.

Ah well, I'm nothing if not flexible. Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama. I'll be happy either way.

As usual, our choices are not great. Why is Bill Richardson so far behind? I, as a republican, could vote for that guy.

Not happy with any of the front runners (R or D) What "Bush" state can Hillary flip? Ohio maybe?

Rudy was a disaster at the end of his term until 9-11. After that he had firefighters arrested because they wouldn't stop searching for their brothers (133 bodies recovered after that date) He lost my vote there.

Can someone tell me one accomplishment of Obama? I have an open mind, I actually like the guy. But, I've got nothing but a plan?

Edwards is going to end poverty, THPSSST! The guy made gazillions exploiting junk science. That's Gazallions with a G! $500 hair cuts, a real man of the people!

My advise is to stay out of it until the left base picks a left wing tree hugging liberal. The right wing will pick some anti puppy homophobe. Once again we'll be stuck with a poor choice.

It's sort of cute that Edwards wants to end poverty, cute in a 22-year-old-idealistic-grad-student sort of way.

You're never going to end poverty. You might temporarily reduce it, but it's always going to be there. It's an unfortunate by-product of capitalism.

I find it hard to keep my eyes from rolling out of my head when I hear a politician wanting to "end poverty." It's just shameless pandering. Nothing's going to be done about it. He knows it, I know it, you know it. I just can't vote for someone like that.

Would you prefer to vote for a candidate that has no plan and no vision? Are you looking for a leader that tells you they have no answers to our problems - and they don't even want to try . . .??

Edwards has put forth a well articulated plan to address a fundamental need in society – and we respond by saying it’s impossible and we shouldn’t even bother trying. Well, you know what? What’s IMPOSSIBLE is ending terrorism – you know it, I know it and Bush knows it (because any pissed off person can launch his/her own private jihad against us at anytime). But that detail hasn’t stopped this administration from dumping $447.5 billion (that’s BILLIONS with a “B”) down the drain trying to do the impossible (the Springfield, IL share alone is over $180 million). Now just think what those resources – if applied effectively – could have done in an attempt to end poverty in America. We could achieve that goal with ease - heck, we could throw in universal health care and free college for all and we’d still have change left over . . .

I don't advocate screwing the poor. Nor did I say we shouldn't try to help.

I just don't believe Edwards or any other politician is sincere when he/she says "I want to end poverty." Well, duh. Nobody wants poverty.

Every politician says he's/she's going to end poverty, but the nation's income disparity just keeps growing. Pardon my cynicism, but this is why I think Edwards is full of crap.

And it's a red herring to say that we could have applied the $447.5 billion to the poverty problem had G-Dub not started a disastrous war. No, we couldn't have. That money would have just gone into the pockets of rich white Republicans some other way.

Plus, we can't even get people to support their local public schools. Why on Earth do you think the populace would get behind some sort of grandiose anti-poverty plan?

To nancy said, Yes, eagerness in this case is a criticism. I don't disagree he has experience as a public servant and could some day be an excellent US President. But, I personally don't believe he's been around the block enough times to handle the job. Although, I also can't argue that our current leader has done any better, in fact Obama probably couldn't do any worse. My point is just that he seems to be wrapped up in the media hype over himself, which I suppose many politicians are guilty of doing, I was just hoping to hold him to a slightly higher standard.

Edwards does seem likable, but grandiose plans to end poverty (which of course will never occur in this country) shouldn't blind the American public into thinking his ideas are the best in the race.

Anyway, isn't Miss Teen South Carolina - who just recently botched her response to why so many "US Americans" can't find our country on a map - from John Edwards' great state? Way to go on educating our youth! I'm hoping his plans for the rest of the country are better...

You make an interesting observation about holding Obama to a higher standard, and yet most of us would like our leaders to be an "every man" (or woman). I don't know if it's humanly possible to NOT be affected by the media circus surrounding him. Getting wrapped up in it seems to be a smart move. Media exposure is a valuable and expensive commodity in national campaigns. I say milk whatever you can get for free.

Obama's relative "professional politician" inexperience is appealing to me. The more times around the block, the more bullies you're likely to broker with.

As for Edwards and Miss South Carolina, how could I have missed this obvious example of his ineptitude?

An Com:

You say, "Nobody wants poverty", right after saying "I just don't believe Edwards or any other politician is sincere when he/she says "I want to end poverty." I get what you're saying about this being an easy thing to say, but at least he's saying it. So many candidates are completely oblivious or thoughtless on the issue. You also note that because income disparity is growing, Edwards is full of crap. Connect the dots please.

I agree that if we hadn't spent the money on the Iraq war, that THIS administration wouldn't have used it towards helping the poor or strengthening schools. With all due respect, even those of us who do not support public schools by sending our children there still support them through our taxes. More funding is needed to be sure, but I'd make an optimistic guess that if polled, most reasonable people would be "for" helping the poor and helping public schools. It's actually doing it that leaves some squirmish.

To Mr. A. Communist:If you agree that poverty is bad - then can you agree that it is a problem we should address? And if you agree that we should address it, do you agree that we should try to also be - you know - successful?? Ending poverty is just the kind of thing that effective national policy should be strive to accomplish . . . but trying to do so while also believing that you can’t do anything does not make good policy.

And you are right - we probably couldn't have allocated the global war on terror's resources in any other way. But I disagree that it's a red herring to just imagine what could have been done with all those wasted dollars! If you get a $5 parking ticket downtown, that’s $5 you could have spent on lunch that day – but instead you went hungry. There’s no harm in imagining that how good that warm bowl of Joe Roger’s chili would have been . . .

To BLT:So, if a state produces just one idiot then no one from that state can be considered a good presidential candidate??? Well, if that’s the case, then Obama AND Hillary are effectively out of the race . . .

Nancy: Edwards is full of crap about poverty just like every other politician who says he wants to end poverty. Poverty has not only not ended, it's getting worse. Why would he be any different?

Ro-Ro: Poverty is bad. It would be nice if people weren't povertized. It is worth trying to mitigate. But you cannot eliminate poverty. To get out of poverty, people need jobs. But in a country of 300 million, there just aren't enough jobs to go around for people who want/need them, especially the kind of jobs that would actually get them out of poverty.

Certainly Edwards knows this. But to say, "I'm going to end poverty," it's just cheap, empty campaigning. But he's a personal injury lawyer. Preying upon people's base emotions is what he does.

I wonder if we're debating semantics. When I read that he wants to "end" poverty, I take "end" literally. Is this what you mean?

Ahhhh, I get it. All we need to do is pump tons of money into public schools and into welfare and presto chango poverty is ended.

Yeah, it will end.....until they spend it all on Lamborghinis or fighting dogs.

How many times do you have to see poor people (and before you go crazy I am not talking about just one race or every single poor person in the world) have money or privileges heaped upon them only to squander their opportunity?

Poverty is as complex an issue as you will ever find, on par with, or more complex than, the battle with terrorism.

And we think that John Edwards is going to have a big impact on this?

Next issue: social strata. Even in communist countries there was a social stratum. What makes any of us believe that we can eliminate any of our levels be it the poorest or the wealthiest?

There is not always an answer to things as much as we would all like to think there is. Some mountains are too hard to climb.

One more thing. The characterization that if we weren't spending money on the war in Iraq it would find it's way to wealthy republicans is ridiculous. I guess Bill and Hillary are poor and destitute? There have been no democrats who have ever been caught lining their pockets on the public trough? Give me a break! I say about 10% of the nation's politicians on both the national and state level are totally honest. The rest are the George Ryan's and Rod Blagojevich's of the world.

You inspired me to make my own predictions/observations for the Republican side since I did the Democrats a while ago. Its a little long to post as a comment but anyone can read it here: http://www.thereisaway.us/2007/08/2008_republican_presidential_p.html

I'm still convinced Hillary won't be the nominee. She'll finish third in Iowa and South Carolina. Then she'll tank just like Dean.

In regard to your comment about fiscal conservatism...I'd say that there's a lot of wealth redistribution and people getting free rides going on under Bush, but in the other direction. I'd just be happy with someone who put a stop to the richest getting richer at the expense of middle class tax payers.

We suppose there is a point in life when people become jaded and pessimistic. We're just not there yet.

We think that comments here are indicative of the national problems we have. Advancing even ideas for improving our country are met with such cynicism!

Ending poverty and getting people OFF of welfare isn't meant to eliminate the class system. There will still be rich and richer and poor and poorer. Earning a living wage doesn't make them a millionaire, so relax, the rich will still have someone to look down on.

Trying to eliminate a social ill (poverty) is a good thing, even if it seems impossible to accomplish. Much like the noble efforts of the police department to eliminate crime ("take a bite out of crime") are not in vain, even though crime will never fully be eradicated.

We don't deny that our leaders for the last 25 years have driven people to this level of hopelessness and suspician. We haven't been engaged by our government to believe that change can happen.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for President who has voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation. He has proposed a bold, new policy to re-establish America's place in the world. Diplomacy and a return to statesmanship as the path to strong international leadership. A new policy of investing in our communities and our infrastructure. A new policy of Strength through Peace. Read more...

Survival of the Middle Class For most American families, the loss of a job or one serious illness spells catastrophe. Stagnant wages, expensive health care and rising education costs are vital issues being ignored by the Congress and White House. A champion of working families, Dennis Kucinich will lead America into expanding opportunities, universal health care, restore our schools and strengthen Social Security and protections for private pensions. Read more...

Securing Constitutional Democracy A corrupt campaign finance system, coupled with vulnerable electronic voting have eroded America's confidence in our elections. The USA Patriot Act and secret strategy meetings to set policy tear into the very concept of We the People. As President, Dennis will protect individual liberty and privacy and restore balance and fairness in America's electoral system. Read more...

A Sustainable Future As the world population soars towards eight billion, critical issues of survival face all of us. Living on a planet of finite resources means that human life can not be sustained indefinitely without careful thought and compassion coupled with political courage. Read more...

End to Poverty Half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. In 2003, 10.6 million children died before they reached the age of five. Without hope and stricken by the AIDS pandemic, religious strife and no opportunity for an education; desperate poverty is a fact of everyday life for the majority of the world's people. It manifests itself in war, terror and genocide over scarce resources, hopelessness and intolerance. Dennis Kucinich will make it a national priority to fight poverty worldwide. He understands that the path to a safe, strong America is through peace, tolerance and committing our nation to eradicating the root causes of global poverty. Read more...

Saving Capitalism As President, Dennis Kucinich will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO. Huge, multi-national corporations ship American jobs overseas, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and hide behind their lobbyists in Washington. Read more about Dennis' plan to instill ethics, accountability and fairness in global trade and big business.

Read more...

A Healthy Nation Health care in the US is too expensive and leaves 46 million Americans without insurance and millions more underinsured. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for President with a plan for a Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-Profit health care system.

and besides, hes got a SMOKIN HOT WIFE....time for change and a hot first lady can only help!

Interesting how some have no problem throwing billions of tax dollars away on losing causes (elimination of poverty) yet rail against basically the same thing (war in Iraq). Both are seen by each "side" if you will, as helping the poor and down trodden.

As I read the newspaper this morning, I read how another Senator has resigned b/c of shady behavior. From my perspective, I don't trust too many politicians. I believe they are unrealistic standards that are set for these people. I personally would rather have a flawed person, who is willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them, than someone afraid of the media. The person who is afraid of a mistake will go to great lenghts to cover them up with lie upon lie.

For this reason, I won't vote for Hillary. My vote will go to Obama. Will he make mistakes, I am sure, but I truly believe he will own up to his mistakes and learn from them. He won't throw us into a war because he is too stuborn to admit a mistake. I do believe Edwards is a good person and I have great respect for his wife. I think he wants to have change in the way Washington politics are ran, but I don't believe he is strong enough to do it on his own. Paired with Obama, I think they could accomplish great things.

We need honesty - if that comes at the price of accepting our politicians are not God Like, then I am prepared to to be patient and understanding.

I thought we went to Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction. We went to help the downtrodden and poor? When's that going to start happening?

To Spuddy

I appreciate your last paragraph. We use Edwards' $500 haircut as an example of his extravagance, but how many people spend their money on an iPhone, or $300 bat for their Little Leaguer or expensive tuition for their kids? We're all guilty of spending our money on things that we deem important that may leave others scratching their heads. This doesn't exclude Edwards from being sincere in his plans toward ending poverty.

Good thing for the Jews that Roosevelt and Truman didn't have such a narrow view as yours Nancy.

Yes, a large part of the U.S. invading Iraq was to find WMD's. That was because Saddam would not cooperate with U.N. MANDATES (not U.S. - U.N.....get it!). It also was to finally rid the country of a brutal dictator who practiced genocide. Sound familiar? Has the war gone well? No. But the stated intent was worthy and noble.

Now you can go ahead and bore us about how past U.S. administrations actually propped up Saddam to fight Iran.

Goodwin's Law states that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." The rule is meant as a caution against use of inflammatory remarks - and I love that A9:40 went so quickly from a good natured debate to this invalid comparison.

OK - real quick here, as to not linger and incur more hyperbolic references from "anonymous" posters . . .

A9:40, you state that the search for WMD's was a "large part" of the reason we went to war with Iraq. You are right, and the other arguments, as stated by "W", were to root out the 911 terrorists and ensure peace and civility in the region. Which of those three MISSIONs were ACCOMPLISHED? As for the debate about Sadam as a really, really bad guy who needed to be removed . . . what about North Korea, China or Darfur?? Those countries have despotic leaders much more dangerous than Sadam, yet we aren't running off to engage them, nor will we any time soon.

Interesting where we read in today's SJ-R that North Korea is scheduled to dismantle their nuclear program. Where is the praise from the left for diplomacy averting the need for war? Strangely silent.

You see, when you are not able to praise your "enemy" when things go right, your arguments are merely seen as party-line rubbish.

And I just love the "well look how bad that country/leader is...." argument. How many freaking wars can we fight at once? And where has anyone written on this blog that the war is going well? The initial invasion went great; the occupation has been a disaster. Does the fact that the occupation is going bad make the initial decision bad? Talk about your Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the end this debate isn't about how well a war is going it is about the blind rage that the left feels for George, and the ridiculous assertions that follow ("he lied," "it is just so his buddies can make more money" blah blah blah). If just once the left would say, "you know, that worked out well" about ANYTHING the Bush administration has done it would give them so much more credibility when it is time to debate such issues as Iraq.

Did you read the whole article on the North Korean nuclear weapons agreement? We have "promises" but no mention of specific dates or what it is the N. Koreans are actually going to dismantle (sounds to me like they are going to take credit for an already shuttered power plant and call it a day). If and when this agreement actually creates change, it would be great for the international community. I hope it happens. But remember, the North Koreans are getting political and economic "compensation" before the promise have been fulfilled. This specifically includes removing them from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and will most likely include a huge amount of cold, hard American cash. Sounds a lot like the way we courted Sadam back in the 70s. When a totalitarilistic dictator has something we want, we will do anything to play nice without any regard for the future implications of those actions.

As for your comment that we are ignoring Bush's success and dwelling on his failures, well, that is the way of the world ("The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred in their bones." M. Anthony, from Julius Cesear). Clinton certainly will be remembered as the guy who had sexual relations with an intern, and the right-wingers will forget that he saved our economy and left office with a huge budget surplus. "W" will most likely be remembered as the guy who drug us into an ill-gotten quagmire, but us lefties will probably forget about the oh-so-sweet tax break he gave us. Loved that one- thanks Georgie! There, a (GULP!) compliment for George W. Bush.

In typical left-winger fashion you forget that the U.S. economy was on a major upswing at the end of George H.W. Bush's administration. So to give credit to Clinton for "saving our economy" is silly.

Quite frankly, I don't think any President, Republican or Democratic, has much to do with the overall health of our economy. It is much like poverty, no single guy, with or without great hair, is going to have much of an impact on it.

I always laugh when a talk radio conservative stops complaining about Bill Clinton just long enough to complain about liberals hating Bush. When someone starts a poorly planned war based on lies and makes America the most hated it has ever been in the world, then there's good reason to complain. If you want an example of blind hatred then look at conservatives bringing up Bill Clinton at every opportunity 7 years after he left office. Your average celebrity stalker is less obsessive than that.

If you want an example of blind partisanship look at continued whining about the "liberal media bias" conspiracy theory. The media spent months and years dogging Clinton non-stop about whitewater and Lewinsky but gave Bush a free pass when he lied about Iraq. Only a blind partisan would still buy the liberal media bias line in light of those facts. Listening to a constant diet of hate-radio lies and propaganda can really disconnect a person from reality.

We are mainly talking about what happens here in this blog. Several shots were fired against Bush and there was a response. Go back and look and see if the first "shot" was fired about Bush or Clinton.

Additionally, I could care less what other "conservatives" (as you call them......talk about your profiling!) are saying about Clinton. That doesn't concern me. What concerns me is people who say stupid things like "Bush lied" with absolutely no proof yet think Clinton was just A-OK when it is an absolute fact that he lied....under oath!

I call it like I see it, not because I'm blinded by the mantra of the "team" I'm on. Do you see anyone here defending George Ryan or the guy caught in the airport bathroom? No, because conservatives (the people you hate just because of what they believe. Man, that sounds similar to bigotry) seem to have the ability to admit when things aren't right.

So since you brought it up, go ahead and let us know what you think of Clinton's lies under oath.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems more relevant to take shots at our sitting wartime President than one from seven years ago.

I'll have to revisit Will's blog. Where did he say he hates conservatives?

Contrary to what you assert, many liberals and Democrats are willing to critically look at the leaders of our party. I have written on this very blog about my dislike of Blagojevich. Not only do I not like what has occured under his administration, I blame him whole heartedly for it, not using phrases like "it hasn't gone as planned". I've also been on the record in support of George Ryan's moratorium on the death penalty. It doesn't hurt me a bit to say either of those things.

I certainly don't hate conservatives, nor do I defend Clinton for his affair. I simply feel the same way Ray LaHood does about the destructiveness of the talk radio approach to politics.

Honestly, I haven't met anyone outside the Fox News and talk radio crowd that still thinks Bush was honest about the Iraq War. So I'm curious if you really believe that Iraq had WMD's and had ties to Al-Qaeda. Donald Rumsfeld had more personal meetings with Saddam Hussein than Ossama Bin-Laden did.

If you think Bush's claims about WMD's were just an honest mistake regarding bad intelligence then I'd suggest you read what all three former Chief Weapons Inspectors in Iraq said before the war began. There were knowledgeable people who said Bush's claims were false before the war began that Bush and the media chose to ignore.But you really believe Bush never lied? Really?

I think Bush made a poor decision in relying on what turned out to be faulty information based on British intelligence. Was he too eager to engage? Probably. Did he lie? I don't know. Unless you can read his mind you don't know either.

You can believe all you want, but to say that a person is definitely lying you need to have proof. Proof to me is an admission or overwhelming evidence in various forms.

As far as there being a connection between Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I don't recall that being the main reason for going there. That was certainly the reason we went to Afghanistan. Do you dispute the tie there?

Is Bush perfect? No. Has this war gone well? No. But again, the reason for going to war had, at least on the surface, to any regular American who relies on the media for their information, (as poor as that is) legitimate purposes. Purposes that I view as noble and worthwhile. We may not see the ramifications, good or bad, for many years to come.

Unless one of you breaks out your all-knowing crystal ball. You know, the one they issued to you during your training at the Kennedy Compound.

You seem to be much more forgiving of Bush's making a bad decision in going to Iraq, which has caused thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and less forgiving of Clinton's decision to hook up with an intern, which didn't even cost a marriage. Is it all because Clinton lied under oath? Can you possibly compare the two "mistakes"?

I'm looking forward to the day that Bush is made to go under oath and answer for all of the devastation he's caused. I'm sure he'll tell the whole truth.

Had Clinton received advice that his transgression was a good idea, would you have removed blame from him? Because I've heard Monica is one persuasive little tart.

You relied on the media for guidance in why Bush went to war? You HATE the media! We are very much seeing the ramifications of this decision right now...its full negative impact will certainly take years to be realized.

Before I leave this debate and go do something more productive like chase my tail I must respond one more time.

Nancy,

Where have I said that I have not forgiven Clinton or said anything negative about him? I only used him to illustrate the hypocrisy in calling Bush a liar, which at this time is a subjective argument, while supporting someone who actually admitted to lying.

"Didn't even cost a marriage." That alone speaks volumes. What a proud badge for Hillary to wear!

"You HATE the media!"I do? Your crystal ball is working overtime. I guess the same way that you know Bush is lying, what the North Koreans are going to do in the future, and that the war in Iraq is a huge failure is the same way you know who I am and what I hate......Pure speculation.

I hesitated to enter the fray that is this blog, because I know I am not as politically well-versed as the rest of the participants here. However, since I do tend more toward the middle, I thought the perspective from there might be of some interest.

I have a really difficult time with the argument from the right that Edwards shouldn't say he wants to end poverty because he knows he can't. It's not pandering for votes to take such a position - it's stating one of the priorities on which an Edwards administration would focus. Pandering for votes was what I did when I was in 7th grade and I stood in front of the St. Aloysius student body and promised that, if elected, I would engineer the prompt return of chocolate milk to the lunch room. I knew full well that Lil the lunch room lady was going to have none of that. But I also knew that 3rd and 4th graders are gullible. And it worked. In contrast, when Edwards says he wants to end poverty, he is not making an election year promise that by January 2009 there will be no more poor people, and I think we all know that.

Its akin to medical researchers who pledge to eradicate cancer by the year 2015. Are they really going to accomplish that goal? Probably not. Does that mean they should stop trying? The people who have cancer sure hope not. Any progress toward the goal can improve lives and offer hope, much like a commitment to wage a war on poverty.

Regarding the war in Iraq. No doubt it has been and is a disaster. We can argue at length whether Bush lied, whether US actions have been justified, and what the true motives for engaging in the war were or are. But regardless of your stance, I think we must appreciate the bravery and commitment of our troops and acknowledge that through their actions they HAVE helped and ARE helping the poor and down-trodden Iraqi people. I agree that's not what motivated this war, but I have to believe that at least some lives are better off because of the tireless efforts and courage of our troops.

P.S. In case you were wondering, during my tenure on the Student Council, chocolate milk did return to the lunch room, on Friday's only. A measured improvement - and worth the effort!

Saw your confusion over Fred Thompson and Fred 'Gopher' Grandy. Funny you should mention Gopher because there's a very funny YouTube clip I saw on Wonkette today that claims that both men were in involved in the page scandal of the 80s. here's the YouTube link - LMAO!